Accurate classification of smoking status has long been regarded as an essential prerequisite for advancing tobacco-related epidemiologic, treatment, and policy research. However, the descriptors we commonly use to classify people who smoke may inadvertently perpetuate harmful, stigmatizing beliefs and negative stereotypes. In recognizing the power of words to either perpetuate or reduce stigma, Dr. Nora Volkow—Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse—recently highlighted the role of stigma in addiction,1 and the movement encouraging the use of person-first language and eliminating the use of slang and idioms when describing addiction and the people whom it affects.2,3 In this commentary, we make an appeal for researchers and clinicians to use personfirst language (e.g., “people who smoke”) rather than commonly used labels (e.g., “smokers”) in written (e.g., in scholarly reports) and verbal communication (e.g., clinical case presentations ) to promote greater respect and convey dignity for people who smoke. We assert that the use of precise and bias-free language to describe people who smoke has the potential to reduce smoking-related stigma and may enhance the precision of scientific communication.

case study of anti-smoking program for kids that backfired

Aspirational Communication, an approach that seeks to motivate and mobilize people to support a cause by connecting it to the audience’s aspirations for their own lives. I specifically suggest a six-step framework based on the approach that can help social movements to drive durable attitude change.

good example of an advocacy microsite/social media toolkit

demonstrates an important link between expenditure on tobacco control mass media and rates of successful attempts to quit smoking. The more is spent

Teen vaping continues to rise across the country. Without effective intervention, we are facing a new generation of nicotine addiction. That’s why we feel it...

In a study, the researchers said that smokers who had limited familiarity with information technology were more likely to consider antismoking messages manipulative and boring when they browsed those messages on a website with interactive features, such as sliders, mouseovers and zooming tools.

Halpern et al. ended up demonstrating the importance of loss aversion in two different ways. The more obvious is that smokers are far more likely to quit if they stand to lose money if they fail. The more subtle is that the very prospect of incurring losses makes people far less willing to enter a smoking-cessation program. Despite the greater comparative effectiveness of the deposit program, the reward program is likely to be more successful, because far more people will sign up for it.